"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
news:2Yvyh.37369$5U4.35764@trnddc07...

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
news:iLuyh.5336$384.156@trnddc05...

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
hello
Jeff
i am very thank full to your help, i have got Rx height 101.2

Regards
naqvi

Please show your work.


Hi Stephan

Your posts seem to inply that the receive antenna will "see" the 20
meter high transmitting antenna when the receiver antenna is in the
shadow of the 80 meter hill. It seems that the receiver needs to be
out of the shadow of the hill unless you are able to estimate
refraction from the hill.

But, your aparent confidance in the statement "0 feet" makes me wonder
if I have this problem wrongly analyzed. I have so much confidance in
Richard Fry's data that I had accepted his estimation of 270 meters to
be as close as you can estimate.

Do I misunderstand your post about what minimum height is needed?

Jerry
Hi Jerry,

how many shadows have you seen that are 20Km long?


Hi Stephan

Tell me where I have misunderstood the problem. I assumed the
transmitting antenna was Lower than the top of the hill. But, you seem
to imply that the transmitter can be seen even when the hill is blocking
the "view" to it.

I have actually never measured a shadow longer that a few feet, but I
assumed they continued to exist to infinity when an object blocks them
from view.

Well you see Jerry, the reason you only see it for a few feet is because
the attenuation of the light varies inversely with the distance from the
object that blocks the light. I think you have done a good job in making
my point. Thanks,

Hi Stephan

I now understand now that you do think you can receive 10 GHz signals
while the receiver is in the shadow caused by the mountain between you and
the transmitter. Do I understand you correctly?

Jerry